Friday, 23 November 2012

It’s great to know that so many people are
concerned with the unity of the church, and that John 17 is again being quoted
freely as the source of our commitment to unity (even though the prayer is
about glory and only in a secondary sense about unity).

Having being brought up in a Presbyterian
tradition which happily engaged (and engages) in schism over matters that are
not to do with the substance of the faith, I am fully committed to upholding
that unity which is one of Christ’s great gifts, as well as tasks, for the
church’s life.

But I can’t so easily dull the pain of the
CofE’s most recent decision with the thought that we/they have maintained
unity, even at great cost.

The issue of women bishops may seem, to
some, a matter of secondary import in comparison to the church’s mission in the
world. But it does not seem so to me. The church’s primary task (if a lapse
into Presbyterianism is permitted) is not mission at all, but rather ‘to
glorify God and enjoy him for ever’ (cf John 17). Let’s put that alongside Ireneus’ famous
statement, ‘The glory of God is humanity fully alive’ (gloria dei vivens homo). I find it hard to believe that a church
with a seriously flawed anthropology is fulfilling its primary purpose of
glorifying God.

Women are not ‘fully alive’ when their
created and baptismal identity in Jesus Christ is denied. This is not
fundamentally a question of human rights and social justice. It’s much more
elemental. It concerns basic Christian anthropology.

It’s
all very well for those opposing the consecration of bishops to tell women
we’re ‘equal but different’. That reads like patronising rhetoric. What it is
saying in effect is: ‘Yes, you women are equal to us but you don’t have the
requisite gifts for servant-leadership in the church because God has created
you without that gift. The capacity for authority which is a fundamental part
of being human doesn’t apply to you. You are not as like God as we men are.’ In
other words, we are not equal at all in the sight of God, nor in the ministry
of Christ.

And yet, baptism does draw us into Christ,
women and men alike: into his saving, sacrificial death, making us one, calling
us into his servant ministry. We are all of us clothed in Christ, the Servant
of all. We are called to be his servants, servants of one another, servants to
the world — servants in leading and in following.

(As a matter of fact, women are quite good
at serving. We’ve had years of experience. Does it or does it not qualify us
for servant-leadership in the church? Or is it that, the moment the word
‘authority’ creeps in, suddenly servanthood is reserved only for men?)

How is God glorified in an anthropology that
in effect denies the validity of women’s baptism, our relationship to Christ,
our capacity to be self-giving for his sake and that of the gospel?

I have little comprehension of why Catholic
Anglicans, who have accepted the ordination of women as priests, can oppose
their consecration as bishops. The consistency of a Catholic Anglican position
should be that women are eligible for all three or for none. Why cavil at the
last of the three?

As for the conservative Evangelical
position, I have some (though limited) understanding of where they’re coming
from in terms of certain passages in the New Testament that seem to deny women
headship. Here the real issue is the dominance of the husband in the home and,
by extension, the church.

Once again, we never hear exactly why women
can’t hold leadership in home and church, and yet can do so elsewhere. The
position is surely inconsistent. Some of these same men have wives who display
leadership in the secular arena, yet that somehow is not problematical. The
sheer inconsistency is mind-blowing. It’s based on an uncritical reading of
Scripture that refuses to interpret Scripture by Scripture, but runs away with
a fistful of text to support a power-agenda.

So, back to the question of unity. The Revd
Dr Kevin Giles, in a letter in the latest issue of The Melbourne Anglican, points out that a number of clerics in the
USA strongly supported slavery in the South on the basis of certain biblical
texts (the same texts, in fact, that oppose women’s leadership). Opposed to
them were a number of Evangelicals who read the Bible very differently, with a
deeper understanding of the message of the gospel and its transforming
imperative.

In what sense would we have been able to
maintain unity with the pro-slavery party in the church during that period? Would
we have commended unity in quite the same way?

In other words, does the upholding of unity
mean we forsake our principles, our core theological beliefs, our conviction of
the shape of the gospel?

I can’t support a unity that compels me to
accept a distorted theology on fundamentals such as Christian anthropology. That
doesn’t mean I have no sense of unity with those who hold a different view. Being
with them at the eucharistic table is what I can do; serving them in love is (I
hope) what I would do. What I can’t do is accept their interpretation of
women’s place in the church — women who are re-made, along with men, in the
image of Christ in baptism.

I don’t believe a commitment to unity
demands that of me or of anyone else who supports the gracious calling of God
and the place of women in the episcopate.